With most of the republicans tied in a knot over who gets to worship at the foot of the O-bamma idol the true conservatives must unite to turn this nation around. Lets start the American Conservative party...
I understand your frustration but we do not have to start a new political party. Turn that grassroots effort into getting the RINOs out of the Republican Party. It starts at the local level and moves up. Identify the RINOs - school boards, county commissioners, Mayors, state reps, Governors, US Senators and Reps, and then the Presidency. And it does not stop with political leaders. Identify the RINOs in the media, talk shows, within administrations. Tell people what RINOs are and then tell them why certain people are RINOs. Keep the faith!
It's hard to just target the RINO's, my state RI, had one of the worst RINO's in history in Lincoln Chafee and the republican party continued to back him in his reelection in 2006 over a war veteran and solidly conservative opponent in the primarys. Of course I and many other RI republicans refused to vote for Chafee on principle and so we get Whitehouse the democrat winning the election....just baffles me why the reps would rather back an incumbent like Chafee over a solid conservative alternative...
The answer is that not all Repubicans are social conservatives, and the Republican Party is not the Conservative Party. Some of us are for moderate taxes, controlled government spending, balanced budgets (it was Dick Chaney who said that "deficits don't matter"...yikes!!) and making the governmant mind its own business and keep out of issues like abortion and gay marriage regulation, which are primarily religious issues. Solid conservative alternatives are mainly far too right wing, that's why Obama and the like got elected. GET A CLUE.
Republicans lost the '08 election because we were not conservative and did not practice free market principles during our 8 years. It was Bush who said, "I gave up on free market principles to save the free market." Doesn't he know what he's talking about? We couldn't win with a moderate, McCain, and the U.S. doesn't need another liberal party. Most people I know voted for Obama because he looked different (though I hate to say it), was able to articulate himself very well, and he wasn't a Republican like Bush who, according to the mass media, let everyone down. Also, as far as I know, no 3rd party has been able to win a presidential election in the history of America.
If you listened to Levin, you would know that he is closer to a libertarian than a social conservative. You would also know that he is far too principled to push for anything not covered in the Constitution or Declaration. If I am wrong and you do listen to him, you either need to listen more often or simply accept that you are a Reagan Democrat.
There's no shame in being a Blue Dog, but don't try to confuse people with your RINO jibberish. Think I am calling you a RINO because we simply disagree and it is my way to discredit you? Listen, I am no social conservative but anyone claiming to be a Republican that is more offended by a "far too right wing"-er that opposes unfettered abortions than the EXTREME leftist that Obama is, who voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, strikes me as someone I wouldn't want having my back in this battle.
If you're argument is that Republicans/Conservatives are losing because they are too "right wing", then explain how Obama won as far to the left as he is. (Of course, us "right-wingers" know that it was a perfect storm of economic catastrophe, outright lying, cult of personality, and lack of vetting by the media.) Personally, I'd say this election was lost because the GOP candidate was EXTREMELY weak and was unable to articulate common-sense conservative principles because he never was a conservative. It's amazing how you people got, probably, the most liberal Republican to run for office ever as the nominee and are out there still calling for more of the same. You either don't get it or your spine is 'al dente'.
Hey Barry. If *you* "had a clue," you would have noticed that he spelled it right the first time. Ever heard of a "typo?" And I suppose it's beneath you to ever have produced one. Who's the ignorant one here? "People who live in glass houses..."
You are forgetting the most important aspect of why FAUX-bama won. And that is due to ACORN and MASSIVE voter fraud. Let's not forget, he was their Executive Director back in the 90's & if not bad enough now, he saw to it in the Porkulus Bill to inject 3 BILLION DOLLARS into ACORN's coffers. This is his attempt at solidfying Demcrat control for DECADES to come & quite possibly, forever. (or, for we Christians... at least until Christ returns...which hopefully is not that far off) The FAUX-bama/ACORN saga is truly frightening. Go watch some YouTube videos exposing ACORN. It's unreal.
The reason the Republicans lost is A. We don't need another G.W. Bush B. We are in a stupid war with a no win situatuon c. The economy tanked. The reason Obama won: A. Americans are lazy and don't want to work. They want the government to do everything, including hand you a paycheck. B. Socialism thrives when we have no middle class. Just CEO's who rip off companies and waste millions on there lavish lifestyles. AND BY THE WAY YOU RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS -THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM-THESE CEO'S SHOULD ALL BE HUNG IN TIMES SQUARE. JUST THINK HOW YOUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL ENJOY PAYING FOR THIS WASTEFUL STIMULUS PACKAGE!!! YES, AMERICA SUCKS--WE NEED A NEW COUNTRY, WE PEOPLE USE COMMON SENSE AND NEITHER PARTY HAS ANY ANSWERS.
Peg, eh, what the heck are you even talking about?
1. We don't need another Bush, but only because he wasn't fiscally conservative. We certainly don't need any more representatives who, under the guise of being a "compassionate" conservative, won't protect our borders and enforce the rule of law.
2. The war was, indeed, not a good choice. To say that we didn't win in Iraq is factually inaccurate.
Now your other points:
1. Americans are lazy? Huh? You know, keep in mind that Obama only got 52% of the vote. Your mass indictment that all Americans are lazy is foolish. Not even all the people that voted for Obama are lazy.
2. We have no middle class? This is another mindless assertion. Firstly, classifying people into a class is pure socialism. In any event, I would say that your surveying techniques of what is "middle class" needs a lot of work. Most everyone would consider themselves part of the middle class.
Here again, you just throw out some broad media propaganda statement about CEOs ripping off companies. If a company is willing to pay you lavish sums of money, you wouldn't accept it? I think you're just jealous. Regardless, the board of that company and its shareholders are to blame for allowing overcompensation, if that is your real complaint. Otherwise, CEOs embezzling from companies is the exception, not the rule. It is dangerous to mix the two.
Your mob mentality is also flawed. It's clear that you have been sucked in by media and congressional propaganda that Wall Street and a handful of corrupt CEOs are to blame for our woes. How about directing some of that rage at Congress? Here's a quote for you:
"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
-Ayn Rand, 1975
America doesn't suck, you suck. America is largely uninformed, and to the delight of our leaders. The media is not doing their job. Neither party has any answers? Well, at least you got two things right. I would just say that the answers that the Democrats do have are far scarier than I wish to consider.
Peg might be right about one thing--we might need a new country. She's definitely wrong about socialism, though, because socialism never thrives--it's more like trickle up poverty.
Yes, it's beginning to look like the USA cannot be fixed, so maybe the former Confederate States of America should secede again--some of the plains and mountain states could probably join us. I feel sure that it would stick this time. Do any of you really believe that Obama, like Lincoln, would prosecute a war, for his own political gain, to conquer another country and bring it's states back into the union, at the cost of killing 5% of the population? I don't, and by the way, the War of Northern Aggression was all about the southern states defending, against northern invader-terrorists, their constitutional right to be governed by the consent of the governed and to throw off the unequal and oppressive (mild in comparison to today) taxation and unequal representation that the north had forced upon them for decades--it was never about slavery.
And now, some food for thought from Alexis de Toqueville:
A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
The Republicans had a golden opportunity (perhaps their last) and blew it big time. RINOS seeking the favor of Democrats pushed the party further away from conservatives. And finally, personally, hearing Sean Hannity praise the Republican party as "the party of Lincoln!" finally drove the nail into the coffin.
To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican party; the party left me. It is impossible to imagine Republicans gaining power again, as it is to imagine what will be left of our liberties to fight for after four long years of "The Messiah."
The reason we lost is we really had no leadership at the top. McCain in my opinion did more to damage the Republican Party then anyone. His reaching across the isle to avoid using the nuclear option on the DEMS filibuster was the turning point.
I wish Levin would run. With his command of the King's language and his critical thinking skills he would embarrass most any DEM out there, especially Obama who in my opinion appears totally aloof and is merely winging his presidency. I also believe he's bitter which stems from his childhood rearing. a reckless mother who finally a banded him and a father who obviously wanted nothing to do with him, which is why his grandmother raised him.
All the signs are there with Obama and what his real agenda is. His own administration stated if you're a white carpenter you will not be entitled to any of the stimulus. Obama's church affiliation and that remark he made about his grandmother being a typical white.
I'll spare the details but I strongly believe Obama harbors animosity towards a certain class of people and will do all within his power to destroy that class and make them pay for what he perceives as wrongdoings while America achieved greatness in just 200 + years.
Last, many claim he's super intelligent. Take the teleprompter away from him, leaving him to his own devices and he's an embarrassment. Most all of his arguments are totally invalid plus half the time I doubt anyone has a clue of what he's talking about, he rambles' incoherently at times.
I am not the answer, YOU are the answer...we can no longer rely on Federal, State or Local government; the answer is you the individual. Get your values & principles in order because we are in for the fight of our lives for of the country we love so much & that shines liberty around the world.
Life, Individual Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness (accumulation of personal property). That is what we stand for, now go spread the word.
""making the governmant mind its own business and keep out of issues like abortion and gay marriage" all libertarian principles. "
Not true - these are Constitutionalist principles. Until and unless the US Constitution is amended to allow the Federal regulation of church doctrine, taking legislative action to regulate those issues is illegal and unconstitutional. The Conservative seeks to conserve the original intent of the Constitution, while the Liberal seeks to ignore it, or pretend it means something other than what it says.
I have always considered "social conservatives" to be misnamed liberals, IMHO.
In claiming that keeping the government out of peoples business (i.e. keeping it small), and that keeping it out of issues like abortion and gay rights are "Libertarian principles" you are, at best, half right.
The reason so many of these things have become more and more ingrained in Libertarian beliefs is that the Libertarian party is where many true fiscal conservatives have flocked since the "religious right" and social conservatives have taken over the Republican party.
A true fiscal conservative knows that maintaining a minimalist government is more important than legislating restrictions on the rights of others which in no way impede on anybody other than that individual (see also "My rights end where you're rights begin...".) There is nothing wrong with believing that gay marriage or abortion is wrong. There's nothing wrong with you voicing that opinion. There IS something wrong with you legislating a morality upon other people when it does not affect the rights of anybody else. Two gay guys getting married does not violate any right of yours, while it allows them the right to pursue happiness. The place where you can exclude people because their beliefs and yours don't match is your church, not your government.
The fact is every law that is passed increases by a small amount of the cost of the government in order to enforce that law. By the nature of a fiscally conservative doctrine you should be opposed to this except when absolutely necessary.
- Government where needed, and ONLY where absolutely needed. - Taxation to the minimum needed to fund the government mentioned in the previous point. - Regulation is just another word for government, see the first point. - Limit an individuals rights ONLY when they impede on the rights of another individual. If for no other reason than because it's more fiscally prudent.
"If a company is willing to pay you lavish sums of money, you wouldn't accept it?"
They are paid the big bucks to make companies profitable, not siphon off as much money into their own pockets as possible before bailing out leaving the stockholders holding the bag. You can't have it both ways, if you claim that shareholders need to get more active to prevent bad CEOs then you need to lay off people COMPLAINING ABOUT BAD CEOS.
UnkownSoldier: It depends what you mean by 3rd party ... The mid-19th century is known for its chaos in political parties, with a variety of regional issues throwing the established Democrat-Whig two-party system into flux. It's well-known that Abraham Lincoln benefited from this continuing friction to win the office in 1860 with a huge electoral college advantage, even though he didn't even appear on most southern ballots. The electorate had candidates from four parties to choose from (giving Republicans 39.8% popular vote, Southern Democrats 18.1%, Northern Democrats 29.5% and Constitutional Unionists 12.6%. Thanks to Wikipedia for the stats). Many like to say that he was a 3rd party candidate, but this is slightly inaccurate given that the Republicans had already begun consolidating power in 1854, demonstrating their strength in the 1856 election. However, taking a larger view, one could say that the rapid rise of the Republican party shows how a "3rd party" can quickly change the political landscape, particularly by co-opting and unifying smaller groups.
For those who want to start a new party -- look around, and you'll probably find that it already exists. It's just starving for your support. Next time you vote, take a look at how many other parties are on the ballot (in my district, there are always at least four parties from hard-left to hard-right alongside the usual donkey and pachyderm). So long as we choose to keep power in the hands of the same two (intertwined) political machines, very little true change of any kind is possible. (Sidenote: it is worth remembering the 1836 election when the Whigs tried - and failed - to challenge Martin van Buren's power by fielding four different candidates in different regions, in the hopes of having the House of Representatives cast the deciding vote. Just an interesting quirk of history.)
And as a final thought: to call American politics a two-party system is inaccurate. We have a two-COALITION system. Many know this instinctively: the tensions between the social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican coalition, or the unions and eco-warriors in the Democratic coalition are but two examples. Unfortunately, the coalitions have ossified and long-standing bargains stand in the way of dynamism. The primaries are the only real opportunity for the component parts of the coalitions to really make their voices heard. Witness how Ron Paul rattled some big cages on both sides.